Obama really has set the standard for what a president ought to be. He's changed everything. His foreign policy is the most sophisticated, sustainably strong that any American president has ever put forward. His domestic policy has returned our country to a period of economic strength that it has not seen since the 1980s. His stances on social issues are consistent with his values, and the kinds of values that Americans ought to embody. What he leaves behind is an America that is stronger, and a world that is more stable and more secure than it has been under Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy or Johnson. Not since Truman has the international order been as stable as it is now; and, arguably, it has been since the end of the Second World War that we were this safe. Realistically, I would vote for his third term if that were constitutionally possible.

What I fear is what the world looks like, in the future. I am virtually certain that Hillary Clinton will drag us back into war, and perpetual conflict in the Middle East, because her level of hawkishness parallels noted idiot Lindsey Graham's. I am virtually certain that Hillary Clinton's domestic economic policy will translate into precisely the kinds of international trade agreements and domestic trade policies, as well as--lack of--regulations that gave rise to the economic problems of 2007 and 2008, a year that will remain in infamy for generations.

At 4/28/2016 10:29:20 PM, YYW wrote:Obama really has set the standard for what a president ought to be. He's changed everything. His foreign policy is the most sophisticated, sustainably strong that any American president has ever put forward. His domestic policy has returned our country to a period of economic strength that it has not seen since the 1980s. His stances on social issues are consistent with his values, and the kinds of values that Americans ought to embody. What he leaves behind is an America that is stronger, and a world that is more stable and more secure than it has been under Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy or Johnson. Not since Truman has the international order been as stable as it is now; and, arguably, it has been since the end of the Second World War that we were this safe. Realistically, I would vote for his third term if that were constitutionally possible.

What I fear is what the world looks like, in the future. I am virtually certain that Hillary Clinton will drag us back into war, and perpetual conflict in the Middle East, because her level of hawkishness parallels noted idiot Lindsey Graham's. I am virtually certain that Hillary Clinton's domestic economic policy will translate into precisely the kinds of international trade agreements and domestic trade policies, as well as--lack of--regulations that gave rise to the economic problems of 2007 and 2008, a year that will remain in infamy for generations.

Claim 1: "His foreign policy is the most sophisticated, sustainably strong that any American president has ever put forward."Response: Explain.

Claim 2: "His domestic policy has returned our country to a period of time economic strength not seen since the 1980s"Response: Since Obama has taken office, the year with the highest GDP growth was 2010, in which the economy grew 2.5%. In the year 2006 that number was 2.7%. From 1997 to 2000 annual GDP growth was in the 4 percent range. Granted, in the aftermath of 2008 the economy would need several years to get back to where it was, but still. The official unemployment rate today is lower than it has been, so I will give Mr. Obama this.

Claim 3: "What he leaves behind is a...world that is more stable and more secure than it has been under Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy or Johnson."Response: The world has been getting more peaceful over the years, though this is more of a long term trend than something which can be pegged on the foreign policy decisions of a single president. Not having to deal with the Soviet Union anymore has certainly helped. I would also argue that removing Saddam Hussein, while making Iraq unstable, has over the long term made the rest of the world more stable and the world after 13 years is finally reaping the benefits of the 2003 invasion.However, I would argue that we are now entering a period where the United States is being surpassed as the world's strongest country by the People's Republic of China. As this progresses, China will naturally be more and more inclined to force regime changes around the world to gain allies and strengthen its own hand. The U.S. will still be around, so it will inevitably try to resist this process, shaking up the world significantly (this does, of course, favour a "Cold War" model over a "World War" model). That is, since 1992 we've been in a state of lull but that's going to come to an end in a few years. This doesn't mean that the world won't still be more peaceful than it was, but it will be more violent than it is now. This isn't any president's fault; it's a natural process, though cutting our military budget certainly doesn't help us keep up with China.

At 4/28/2016 10:29:20 PM, YYW wrote:Obama really has set the standard for what a president ought to be. He's changed everything. His foreign policy is the most sophisticated, sustainably strong that any American president has ever put forward.

Uhh completely disagree with this. Maybe it has held a decent level of sophistication, but it is not sustainable and it is not strong. His foreign policy has completely negated any gains we made during the Iraq War, and has left the middle east in a much worse and unstable situation than the one that he inherited. In Iraq, leaving the country prematurely created an unstable environment that allowed ISIS to rise up and gain power and influence. It also didn't help that he essentially ignored them as a threat until a year or two ago, far too late. He failed in Syria, giving all the wrong people the right weapons including radical muslim groups, instead of arming the Kurds. He failed in Libya, toppling Qaddafi (despite the fact that Qaddafi openly warned the west that radical Islam was on the rise and would only worsen if he lost his country http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) also created an extremely unstable environment and now ISIS controls a third of the country and it is a completely failed state. Robert Gates, his own Defense Secretary in his first term claimed in his memoir that Obama in 2010 "doesn"t believe in his own strategy, and doesn"t consider the war to be his. For him, it"s all about getting out," this observation made after Obama ordered 30k troops to Afghanistan. Gates also claimed that Obama was "skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail." That doesn't sound like a strong nor sustainable foreign policy strategy to me.

His domestic policy has returned our country to a period of economic strength that it has not seen since the 1980s.

Again completely disagree. Obama is going to be the first modern president to have not overseen a single year of 3% economic growth. The Obama economy pales in comparison to the economy during the 80s. If everything were going great with this economy, Donald Trump would not be winning the republican nomination and Bernie Sanders would not have given Clinton a run for her money. The Obama economic strategy has been QE and stimulus to cover up the struggling sectors of the economy. Quantitative Easing is like a drugs effect on an addict. Once the high wears off, you're in a worse condition than before. Right now we're in a pretty precarious and far more risky situation than in 2007-8.

His stances on social issues are consistent with his values, and the kinds of values that Americans ought to embody. What he leaves behind is an America that is stronger, and a world that is more stable and more secure than it has been under Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy or Johnson. Not since Truman has the international order been as stable as it is now; and, arguably, it has been since the end of the Second World War that we were this safe. Realistically, I would vote for his third term if that were constitutionally possible.

Lol, he also isn't having to deal with the Cold War... Every single president you mentioned up there dealt with the Cold War. I would even argue that we were safer under Bush 41 than we are now. There were no tensions with Russia, there were no giant terrorist organizations like the ones today, there were no tensions with China, all of which are present in the world now during Obama's presidency.

What I fear is what the world looks like, in the future. I am virtually certain that Hillary Clinton will drag us back into war, and perpetual conflict in the Middle East, because her level of hawkishness parallels noted idiot Lindsey Graham's. I am virtually certain that Hillary Clinton's domestic economic policy will translate into precisely the kinds of international trade agreements and domestic trade policies, as well as--lack of--regulations that gave rise to the economic problems of 2007 and 2008, a year that will remain in infamy for generations.

Let me get this straight.... you are praising Obama, but you resent someone who was very actively involved in formulating and implementing his foreign policy, and whose very candidacy is being marketed as Obama's 3rd term? Obama supports all the international trade agreements that you don't like Clinton for supporting as well... particularly the TPP which I assume is what you are referring to.

At 4/28/2016 10:29:20 PM, YYW wrote:Obama really has set the standard for what a president ought to be. He's changed everything. His foreign policy is the most sophisticated, sustainably strong that any American president has ever put forward.

Uhh completely disagree with this. Maybe it has held a decent level of sophistication, but it is not sustainable and it is not strong. His foreign policy has completely negated any gains we made during the Iraq War, and has left the middle east in a much worse and unstable situation than the one that he inherited. In Iraq, leaving the country prematurely created an unstable environment that allowed ISIS to rise up and gain power and influence. It also didn't help that he essentially ignored them as a threat until a year or two ago, far too late. He failed in Syria, giving all the wrong people the right weapons including radical muslim groups, instead of arming the Kurds. He failed in Libya, toppling Qaddafi (despite the fact that Qaddafi openly warned the west that radical Islam was on the rise and would only worsen if he lost his country http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) also created an extremely unstable environment and now ISIS controls a third of the country and it is a completely failed state. Robert Gates, his own Defense Secretary in his first term claimed in his memoir that Obama in 2010 "doesn"t believe in his own strategy, and doesn"t consider the war to be his. For him, it"s all about getting out," this observation made after Obama ordered 30k troops to Afghanistan. Gates also claimed that Obama was "skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail." That doesn't sound like a strong nor sustainable foreign policy strategy to me.

Amazing how you cannot single out huge successes in Africa and South America... FYI.

His domestic policy has returned our country to a period of economic strength that it has not seen since the 1980s.

Again completely disagree. Obama is going to be the first modern president to have not overseen a single year of 3% economic growth. The Obama economy pales in comparison to the economy during the 80s. If everything were going great with this economy, Donald Trump would not be winning the republican nomination and Bernie Sanders would not have given Clinton a run for her money. The Obama economic strategy has been QE and stimulus to cover up the struggling sectors of the economy. Quantitative Easing is like a drugs effect on an addict. Once the high wears off, you're in a worse condition than before. Right now we're in a pretty precarious and far more risky situation than in 2007-8.

Incorrect. I bet you think that we should have implemented austerity.

His stances on social issues are consistent with his values, and the kinds of values that Americans ought to embody. What he leaves behind is an America that is stronger, and a world that is more stable and more secure than it has been under Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy or Johnson. Not since Truman has the international order been as stable as it is now; and, arguably, it has been since the end of the Second World War that we were this safe. Realistically, I would vote for his third term if that were constitutionally possible.

Lol, he also isn't having to deal with the Cold War... Every single president you mentioned up there dealt with the Cold War. I would even argue that we were safer under Bush 41 than we are now. There were no tensions with Russia, there were no giant terrorist organizations like the ones today, there were no tensions with China, all of which are present in the world now during Obama's presidency.

At 4/28/2016 10:29:20 PM, YYW wrote:Obama really has set the standard for what a president ought to be. He's changed everything. His foreign policy is the most sophisticated, sustainably strong that any American president has ever put forward.

Uhh completely disagree with this. Maybe it has held a decent level of sophistication, but it is not sustainable and it is not strong. His foreign policy has completely negated any gains we made during the Iraq War, and has left the middle east in a much worse and unstable situation than the one that he inherited. In Iraq, leaving the country prematurely created an unstable environment that allowed ISIS to rise up and gain power and influence. It also didn't help that he essentially ignored them as a threat until a year or two ago, far too late. He failed in Syria, giving all the wrong people the right weapons including radical muslim groups, instead of arming the Kurds. He failed in Libya, toppling Qaddafi (despite the fact that Qaddafi openly warned the west that radical Islam was on the rise and would only worsen if he lost his country http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) also created an extremely unstable environment and now ISIS controls a third of the country and it is a completely failed state. Robert Gates, his own Defense Secretary in his first term claimed in his memoir that Obama in 2010 "doesn"t believe in his own strategy, and doesn"t consider the war to be his. For him, it"s all about getting out," this observation made after Obama ordered 30k troops to Afghanistan. Gates also claimed that Obama was "skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail." That doesn't sound like a strong nor sustainable foreign policy strategy to me.

Amazing how you cannot single out huge successes in Africa and South America... FYI.

Lol, just googled "Obama's success in Africa" and here's the first result: http://www.usnews.com... Africa seems to be struggling right now. Their biggest economies are becoming stagnant and are losing steam, and Boko Haram is running rampant. But please enlighten me on these massive successes you speak of

His domestic policy has returned our country to a period of economic strength that it has not seen since the 1980s.

Again completely disagree. Obama is going to be the first modern president to have not overseen a single year of 3% economic growth. The Obama economy pales in comparison to the economy during the 80s. If everything were going great with this economy, Donald Trump would not be winning the republican nomination and Bernie Sanders would not have given Clinton a run for her money. The Obama economic strategy has been QE and stimulus to cover up the struggling sectors of the economy. Quantitative Easing is like a drugs effect on an addict. Once the high wears off, you're in a worse condition than before. Right now we're in a pretty precarious and far more risky situation than in 2007-8.

Incorrect. I bet you think that we should have implemented austerity.

Exactly what is incorrect? I didn't even bring up the deficit either (although that's certainly another reason to dislike Obama's economic policy). Austerity measures have nothing to do with Obama's stimulus and QE policy, so I'm not sure how you could deviate that I would have supported it especially since austerity measures don't do anything to combat a recession...

His stances on social issues are consistent with his values, and the kinds of values that Americans ought to embody. What he leaves behind is an America that is stronger, and a world that is more stable and more secure than it has been under Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy or Johnson. Not since Truman has the international order been as stable as it is now; and, arguably, it has been since the end of the Second World War that we were this safe. Realistically, I would vote for his third term if that were constitutionally possible.

Lol, he also isn't having to deal with the Cold War... Every single president you mentioned up there dealt with the Cold War. I would even argue that we were safer under Bush 41 than we are now. There were no tensions with Russia, there were no giant terrorist organizations like the ones today, there were no tensions with China, all of which are present in the world now during Obama's presidency.

Completely blown out of proportion.

How so? Are you denying the existence of the problems we face in the world today? There definitely was no tension with Russia or China under 41 relative to Obama's 2 terms.